5 ms·

> you're giving me a choice that I have no right to make Now you're just being difficult. This has nothing to do with philosophy: it's pure pragmatism. It's no

> you're giving me a choice that I have no right to make Now you're just being difficult. This has nothing to do with philosophy: it's pure pragmatism. It's not about whether you have the right to make the choice or if it would be arrogant to do so. The question is: IF you had the power to make the choice and moreover were forced to take one of two alternatives, what would you choose? It's useful to make these kinds of unconscionable comparisons because sometimes, corporately, we DO have to choose between two unacceptable alternatives or evaluate the cost of disasters we would never choose to undergo had we the option. Or, more concretely: if the battery of safety precautions to reduce the odds of this happening by 90% would have cost $10 million per year, they would no doubt be worth it. But if they cost $1 trillion per year, they would probably not be worth it (unless you think the total value of all the offshore drilling ever done is less than the cost of this disaster). But even the latter judgment is a choice of one unconscionable option versus another.

thaumaturgy 16y ago
> Now you're just being difficult. I am refusing to be backed into the corner you're painting with your hypotheticals, yes. I think we'll have to simply disagree here. I do not agree that there is any way to put a price on the existence of an entire species -- which was your original statement -- and I doubt that you are going to convince me otherwise. If deepwater oil drilling cannot be done without a near 100% guarantee against disasters like this one, then I simply think it shouldn't be done. I think there are far less risky ways to generate energy that could benefit from a sudden infusion of interest.
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  > without a near 100% guarantee Well, what percent guarantee would you need? Is 99.9% per year per well good enough? 99.999%? Seven nines? And how do you propose to measure that risk? These types of situations are after all inherently unforeseen. Anyway, by admitting that a near 100% guarantee is good enough for you (no matter what that "near" is), you've admitted that you're willing to put a price on it. That price is, naturally, the dollar amount that would be required to reach the level of guarantee you want. So yes, the rest of this conversation has just been you being difficult.
  - thaumaturgy 16y ago
    No, and your accusation that I'm "just being difficult" is starting to piss me off. I think you're a short-sighted, self-centered, argumentative, nihilistic, and stubborn little annoyance -- but I didn't yet disrespect you enough to say so. Look, requiring a guarantee that such a disaster cannot occur is exactly the opposite of placing a value on disaster. It is in effect saying, "If this disaster cannot be impossible, then it is not worth it." I prefaced that guarantee with the word "near" because I pragmatically don't believe there's such a thing as a complete and total guarantee. In the case of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, there were maintenance schedules, safety checks, inspections, safety valves, backup valves for the safety valves, and so on and so forth, and every single one of those failed. Shit happens sometimes, and that has nothing to do with placing a dollar amount on anything. Tell ya what: if you can't see values or costs in things like this without putting a dollar sign in front, then -- OK, sure, I will readily agree to a formula for calculating dollar value that should make you quite happy. Are you ready? It's this: the cost of a disaster is the dollar amount required to reverse all of the effects of the disaster. Lemme know when you've finished totaling that one up on your calculator.
    - houseabsolute 16y ago
      > but I didn't yet disrespect you enough to say so Sure you did; you were just passive-aggressive about it with that "to be polite" bit at the start. You're the one who took the dialogue to this level. I'm just more direct. > the dollar amount required to reverse all of the effects of the disaster Holding the debate hostage with demands for physical impossibilities is definitely a red flag in a conversation partner. There are other adjectives to describe it but I think the one I've already used is apt. Anyway, I'm sure you don't mean this, or wouldn't if you would just think about what you're asking for for a second. Since I can't seem to get a thoughtful, honest answer out of you, continuing this is probably not productive . . . although that was probably true several posts ago.
      - whichdokta 16y ago
        >> the dollar amount required to reverse all of the effects of the disaster >Holding the debate hostage with demands for physical impossibilities is definitely a red flag in a conversation partner. But holding the debate hostage with demands for ethical impossibilities is somehow okay? That said, by allowing for a dollar cost thaumaturgy was not holding the debate hostage. In fact, he accepted your challenge to debate him in the frame of reference YOU set up. A frame of reference which, btw, is not the only one in common use to decide such questions. What you need to respond with now to keep your credibility is whether the 'true' dollar cost is: a) The cost to mitigate every single effect from the disaster. or b) Some other, smaller, amount along with a list of the effects you have discounted from the full amount and justification for such discounting. Alternatively, you can be gracious and concede the point that if there are alternatives to high-risk offshore oil wells then perhaps we should explore them rather than drilling.
- invisible 16y ago
  Not to butt in, but I think he is alluding to the value of things are inherent in you placing importance on them. That you possibly value a species more than 1 single human life is your personal values, but they exist nonetheless. Also, without the "death" part of it on one end: do you value a species enough to spend a full year of your time on helping that species continue to exist? A month? A day? An hour? We inherently place importance on things by a) spending time on those things, or b) spending money we earned by working on those things.
- anamax 16y ago
  > I think there are far less risky ways to generate energy that could benefit from a sudden infusion of interest. That's nice, but how about some evidence. After all, you're wanting to spend a lot of money. > I do not agree that there is any way to put a price on the existence of an entire species -- which was your original statement -- and I doubt that you are going to convince me otherwise. You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the statement, your actions "put a price" on the existence many species. You may not want that to be true, but it is. As a result, the question really is "What is the price?", not "Do you want to put a price on it?"

thaumaturgy 16y ago

> Now you're just being difficult. I am refusing to be backed into the corner you're painting with your hypotheticals, yes. I think we'll have to simply disagree here. I do not agree that there is any way to put a price on the existence of an entire species -- which was your original statement -- and I doubt that you are going to convince me otherwise. If deepwater oil drilling cannot be done without a near 100% guarantee against disasters like this one, then I simply think it shouldn't be done. I think there are far less risky ways to generate energy that could benefit from a sudden infusion of interest.

houseabsolute 16y ago
> without a near 100% guarantee Well, what percent guarantee would you need? Is 99.9% per year per well good enough? 99.999%? Seven nines? And how do you propose to measure that risk? These types of situations are after all inherently unforeseen. Anyway, by admitting that a near 100% guarantee is good enough for you (no matter what that "near" is), you've admitted that you're willing to put a price on it. That price is, naturally, the dollar amount that would be required to reach the level of guarantee you want. So yes, the rest of this conversation has just been you being difficult.
- thaumaturgy 16y ago
  No, and your accusation that I'm "just being difficult" is starting to piss me off. I think you're a short-sighted, self-centered, argumentative, nihilistic, and stubborn little annoyance -- but I didn't yet disrespect you enough to say so. Look, requiring a guarantee that such a disaster cannot occur is exactly the opposite of placing a value on disaster. It is in effect saying, "If this disaster cannot be impossible, then it is not worth it." I prefaced that guarantee with the word "near" because I pragmatically don't believe there's such a thing as a complete and total guarantee. In the case of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, there were maintenance schedules, safety checks, inspections, safety valves, backup valves for the safety valves, and so on and so forth, and every single one of those failed. Shit happens sometimes, and that has nothing to do with placing a dollar amount on anything. Tell ya what: if you can't see values or costs in things like this without putting a dollar sign in front, then -- OK, sure, I will readily agree to a formula for calculating dollar value that should make you quite happy. Are you ready? It's this: the cost of a disaster is the dollar amount required to reverse all of the effects of the disaster. Lemme know when you've finished totaling that one up on your calculator.
  - houseabsolute 16y ago
    > but I didn't yet disrespect you enough to say so Sure you did; you were just passive-aggressive about it with that "to be polite" bit at the start. You're the one who took the dialogue to this level. I'm just more direct. > the dollar amount required to reverse all of the effects of the disaster Holding the debate hostage with demands for physical impossibilities is definitely a red flag in a conversation partner. There are other adjectives to describe it but I think the one I've already used is apt. Anyway, I'm sure you don't mean this, or wouldn't if you would just think about what you're asking for for a second. Since I can't seem to get a thoughtful, honest answer out of you, continuing this is probably not productive . . . although that was probably true several posts ago.
    - whichdokta 16y ago
      >> the dollar amount required to reverse all of the effects of the disaster >Holding the debate hostage with demands for physical impossibilities is definitely a red flag in a conversation partner. But holding the debate hostage with demands for ethical impossibilities is somehow okay? That said, by allowing for a dollar cost thaumaturgy was not holding the debate hostage. In fact, he accepted your challenge to debate him in the frame of reference YOU set up. A frame of reference which, btw, is not the only one in common use to decide such questions. What you need to respond with now to keep your credibility is whether the 'true' dollar cost is: a) The cost to mitigate every single effect from the disaster. or b) Some other, smaller, amount along with a list of the effects you have discounted from the full amount and justification for such discounting. Alternatively, you can be gracious and concede the point that if there are alternatives to high-risk offshore oil wells then perhaps we should explore them rather than drilling.
invisible 16y ago
Not to butt in, but I think he is alluding to the value of things are inherent in you placing importance on them. That you possibly value a species more than 1 single human life is your personal values, but they exist nonetheless. Also, without the "death" part of it on one end: do you value a species enough to spend a full year of your time on helping that species continue to exist? A month? A day? An hour? We inherently place importance on things by a) spending time on those things, or b) spending money we earned by working on those things.
anamax 16y ago
> I think there are far less risky ways to generate energy that could benefit from a sudden infusion of interest. That's nice, but how about some evidence. After all, you're wanting to spend a lot of money. > I do not agree that there is any way to put a price on the existence of an entire species -- which was your original statement -- and I doubt that you are going to convince me otherwise. You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the statement, your actions "put a price" on the existence many species. You may not want that to be true, but it is. As a result, the question really is "What is the price?", not "Do you want to put a price on it?"